NWrit Petition No.43115 of 2006& MP No.1 of 2006 T.KolappanS/o K.Thanu Achary v. The Commissioner
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition is allowed to this extent
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 ss. 256(1), 256(3)
- theChennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 s. 256(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The writ petition is allowed to this extent. No costs.M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed.raaSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Chennai-600 008.2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-3.+ one cc to Mr. R. Kannan, Advocate sr…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:- 09.11.2006Coram:-The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANWrit Petition No.43115 of 2006& MP No.1 of 2006 T.KolappanS/o K.Thanu Achary, rep. by his Power Agent,S.Gayathri,W/o T.Kolappan, residing at 7/3, Bank of IndiaStaff Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083. ... PetitionerVs.
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3.
The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
K.P.Lakshminarayanan`` .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for therecords relating to the notice dated 16.10.2006 issued under Section 256(3) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act,1919, vide No.9302 confirming the provisional notice issued under Section 256(1) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919vide No.7407 dated 25.09.2006 and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.R.KannanFor 1st respondent : Mr.E.R.K.Moorthy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quashthe notice dated 16.10.2006 issued under Section 256(3) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, vide No.9302confirming the provisional notice issued under Section 256(1) ofthe Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 vide No.7407dated 25.09.2006.2.
Even at the admission stage, on direction, Mr.E.R.K.Moorthy takes notice for the first respondent-TheCommissioner, Corporation of Chennai.3. In view of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of theview that it is unnecessary to refer all the factual details asstated in the affidavit. However, it is suffice to note that thenotice is liable to be quashed on the ground that the authority, who issued the notice, has not applied his mind. According tothe Officer, who issued the notice, as per the approved plan thepetitioner is entitled to have open area for parking cars, however, he has covered the said area. Pursuant to the saidnotice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation on14.10.2006, highlighting her stand. The said representation isavailable at pages 46, 47 and 48 of the typed set of papers. Theimpugned notice dated 16.10.2006 is available at page No.49. Wehave verified the said notice.
It is a printed form withoutreference to the earlier notice dated 25.09.2006. Further, for therepresentation/reply of the petitioner dated 14.10.2006, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, has mechanically issued theimpugned notice without taking into account the relevant aspectsadverted to by the petitioner. Though the respondents/authoritiesare entitled to use the printed form; when an aggrieved personmakes a representation, highlighting various events, it is butproper on the part of the authority to consider and take adecision one way or other on the basis of the grievance expressed. In other words, the order must reflect the reason or reasons forarriving such conclusion. The impugned notice, as we havealready stated, which is available at page 49, does not reflectconsideration of the representation of the petitioner dated14.10.2006, hence, we are of the view that the impugned notice hasbeen issued by the authority in a mechanical manner.
On thisground, the impugned notice dated 16.10.2006 is liable to bequashed and accordingly the same is quashed. The firstrespondent is permitted to pass fresh orders after considering therepresentation of the petitioner dated 14.10.2006 in accordance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with law .
Operative part
The writ petition is allowed to this extent. No costs.M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed.raaSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Chennai-600 008.2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-3.+ one cc to Mr. R. Kannan, Advocate sr no. 53665+ one cc to Mr. E.R.K. Moorthy, Advocate sr no. 53742+ one cc to Mr. J. Ravindran, Advocate sr no. 54110BS(CO)NM(23.11.2006) W.P.No.43115 of 2006
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is allowed to this extent
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 — ss. 256(1), 256(3); theChennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 — s. 256(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.